Based on Professor Lowes' comments from last week, I tried to keep an eye for weaknesses in the research articles I read this week.
In the Haavind article, she looked at the relationship of low instructor contribution to high collaborative events amongst students. The study started with seven high collaboration classes, but only three classes fit the model of being low in instructor posting and high collaboration events which was sustained through the course, so only those classes were researched.
This is a small data set to start with, and then to throw out four classes and only look at the remaining three is really small. It also seems like there would be value in trying to understand where the contradictions came from. Class 7 had extremely high instructor contribution *and* sustained high collaboration. Why?
In the Zucker report, he looked at the impact of two approaches to promoting student-student interaction and collaboration. An experiment group was told to assign double point value towards grade based on student to student interaction, and was compared to a control group with the normal point assignment.
In this study, after four weeks into the fifteen week class, the teachers hadn't doubled the points for student to student interaction. At that point when they were asked to do so, they did, but, I think the pattern had already been established at that point and it ruins the study.
Zucker also administered a survey and reported a very high student response rate of 82%. It made me wonder how the survey was presented. Who did the students think the survey was coming from - the school, the teacher, a researcher? Just curious. Also, a survey pet peeve of mine is not having "other" as an option, or better yet and open text field. Without one of those options, and by making every question mandatory, he effectively forced the survey takers to agree with him, leaving no room for a response that he didn't consider.
I also noticed that the Rice article references a Cavanaugh study - I thought it was the one we read last week, but no. The one from last week covered distance ed from 1999-2004. The study Rice references covered distance ed from 1980-1998. Really?! Did they look at correspondence classes? Wow.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Define success
My job is to take web usage data for our site and help business owners understand if their section of the site is "successful" and how to make it better. I see some similar patterns in the meta analysis we read this week.
At the end of the day success looks different from situation to situation depending on your objective, and if a group or a company or an industry can't agree on the same metrics and what they mean, then no one really knows what is being reported.
So, in education, what is our objective? We want kids to learn. But how do you measure how well a kid has learned?
I propose that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to move forward with meaningful, actionable research until we think about this question. What does learning look like? Is it the ability to recall facts, can it be demonstrated in the ability to write an essay? And, to Alejandro's point, what about cheating? Once we identify what success looks like, then students efforts turn to striving to mimic that standard, not learning.
What if we were to accept that in this day and age, anything can be searched for and found, so what is the benefit of memorization. My kids are being taught cursive, and for the life of me I cannot imagine why.
It seems to me like the challenge is to be able to take existing information, sort out the good from the bad, synthesize it, and figure out how to use it appropriately. What if learning was measured by what was created and the process of creating it?
We would look at a student or students ability to pick a project, search for the resources they need to understand it at an appropriate level and take that information and apply it. We'd evaluate their success in collecting and gathering the requisite depth and breadth of information; the level to which they've understood and used the information appropriately; and how well they took the information to create something of their own.
It is unrealistic to think that anyone can learn all that they need for the rest of their life from their time in school. The benefit to this approach is that students learn how to find their answers and be critical thinkers, so whatever the question that arises in the future, they'll know the process to take to build their understanding.
At the end of the day success looks different from situation to situation depending on your objective, and if a group or a company or an industry can't agree on the same metrics and what they mean, then no one really knows what is being reported.
So, in education, what is our objective? We want kids to learn. But how do you measure how well a kid has learned?
I propose that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to move forward with meaningful, actionable research until we think about this question. What does learning look like? Is it the ability to recall facts, can it be demonstrated in the ability to write an essay? And, to Alejandro's point, what about cheating? Once we identify what success looks like, then students efforts turn to striving to mimic that standard, not learning.
What if we were to accept that in this day and age, anything can be searched for and found, so what is the benefit of memorization. My kids are being taught cursive, and for the life of me I cannot imagine why.
It seems to me like the challenge is to be able to take existing information, sort out the good from the bad, synthesize it, and figure out how to use it appropriately. What if learning was measured by what was created and the process of creating it?
We would look at a student or students ability to pick a project, search for the resources they need to understand it at an appropriate level and take that information and apply it. We'd evaluate their success in collecting and gathering the requisite depth and breadth of information; the level to which they've understood and used the information appropriately; and how well they took the information to create something of their own.
It is unrealistic to think that anyone can learn all that they need for the rest of their life from their time in school. The benefit to this approach is that students learn how to find their answers and be critical thinkers, so whatever the question that arises in the future, they'll know the process to take to build their understanding.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
